Demystifying Quantum Physics

[godnotgod]

So God. Because that is what he says in very clear, very obvious terms. Not in your quote, of course, because your quote cuts out the important parts and plays loose with translations, but "diesen geheimnisvollen Schöpfer" (this mysterious creator) is what Planck clearly refers to: God. Not animated particles.

They are the same. 'God' is the actor playing all the myriad parts of the creation simultaneously, from black holes down to the smallest particle. It's all just One Big Act, so don't take it too seriously, LOL....

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by Runewolf1973
This is how I see it...

The simple fact that anything at all exists, is evidence enough to believe that something else must have been there initially to cause it to come into existence in the first place.

Originally Posted by Ouroboros
But what caused that to exist? And what caused that something to cause the universe? It's an infinite recursion.

You are exactly right. That means there must have always been something...something naturally existing, yet infinitely existing at the same time. I call it the "animating factor" or "force". It is like an infinite, universal condition of sorts. Out of that "animating force", when that condition was just right, what we know as energy and matter formed.

Sorry,that is the best I can describe it.
---

Essentially, it is the Tao:

There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.

It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things.

Tao te Ching, ch 25

(more translations of this chapter here
http://www.geekfarm.org/cgi-bin/tao.pl?chapter=25&translation=all

But the problem here, I think, is the idea of causation, which carries with it the problem of infinite regression. This goes along with the assumption that all matter in the universe is something 'real'. But what if this world, this existence, is a dream, but a dream on a higher level so that it appears far more 'real' than what we experience in our sleep-dream world? What if it is possible to awaken from this dream to experience a higher reality that shows us the illusory nature of this current condition, called 'Waking Sleep', or 'Identification'? That would make this world not something real and solid as we think it to be, but a manifestation, a projection, from the higher reality of the awakened Self. It is, of course, what the Hindus refer to as maya. So in this view, nothing is caused, because nothing is real that can be caused in the ordinary sense of causation.


Apparitional Causation

'But what I have referred to as apparitional causation is a very different thing [than transformational causation]. When you mistake a rope for a snake, the rope is not transformed into a snake. It's just a mistake, and it's something you're doing now. So the question is not: "How did the Absolute become the Universe?" That can't be answered. The Absolute has not become the Universe. The question is, " Why do we see it that way?'

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

The problem is that we see the universe through the conceptual filters of Time, Space, and Causation. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms, when in reality, it is actually the unchanging, indivisible, infinite Absolute, what Hindus refer to, I believe, as 'Brahman', and what the Chinese refer to as 'Tao'.

1st observer: 'flag is moving'
2nd observer: 'wind is moving'
3rd observer: 'both flag and wind are moving'
passerby: 'all wrong! your MINDS are moving!'

 

[godnotgod]

False. How can you tell the difference between red and blue? What is the absolute that I require for the discrepancy? Or what if I had a box 10 yards away and another box 100 yards away. What is the absolute needed to know that there is a 90 yard discrepancy between the position of the two boxes and that is where they are in relation to each other.

The unchanging absolute infinite nothingness within which they exist.

The theory of relativity talks about how we need to throw out absolutes of the nature your discussing. Everything is relative. Nothing is an exception to this except for possibly light but thats not because of some underlying mystical reason but because of the properties that light has.

Heh...heh...heh....The concept of what you would be left with after 'throwing out all absolutes' is an absolute in and of itself. How novel: 'Absolute Relativity'...ha ha ha...

If you just think about what 'Everything' is, that is the Absolute, because there is no other 'thing' to which it can be compared, relatively speaking. And if it is Everything, it is the Universe, which is none other than the Absolute itself. All things 'relative' are still completely part of 'everything', and that is the Absolute. 'Relative' is just a convenient concept used by the rational mind in its attempt to 'explain' the One True Reality.

Come, now, monk. It's not too far from where you are to come to your senses.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Essentially, it is the Tao:

There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.

It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things.

Tao te Ching, ch 25

(more translations of this chapter here
tao.pl

But the problem here, I think, is the idea of causation, which carries with it the problem of infinite regression. This goes along with the assumption that all matter in the universe is something 'real'. But what if this world, this existence, is a dream, but a dream on a higher level so that it appears far more 'real' than what we experience in our sleep-dream world? What if it is possible to awaken from this dream to experience a higher reality that shows us the illusory nature of this current condition, called 'Waking Sleep', or 'Identification'? That would make this world not something real and solid as we think it to be, but a manifestation, a projection, from the higher reality of the awakened Self. It is, of course, what the Hindus refer to as maya. So in this view, nothing is caused, because nothing is real that can be caused in the ordinary sense of causation.


Apparitional Causation

'But what I have referred to as apparitional causation is a very different thing [than transformational causation]. When you mistake a rope for a snake, the rope is not transformed into a snake. It's just a mistake, and it's something you're doing now. So the question is not: "How did the Absolute become the Universe?" That can't be answered. The Absolute has not become the Universe. The question is, " Why do we see it that way?'

The Equations of Maya

The problem is that we see the universe through the conceptual filters of Time, Space, and Causation. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms, when in reality, it is actually the unchanging, indivisible, infinite Absolute, what Hindus refer to, I believe, as 'Brahman', and what the Chinese refer to as 'Tao'.

1st observer: 'flag is moving'
2nd observer: 'wind is moving'
3rd observer: 'both flag and wind are moving'
passerby: 'all wrong! your MINDS are moving!'

Thanks! I agree with this completely.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are exactly right. That means there must have always been something...something naturally existing, yet infinitely existing at the same time. I call it the "animating factor" or "force". It is like an infinite, universal condition of sorts. Out of that "animating force", when that condition was just right, what we know as energy and matter formed.

Sorry,that is the best I can describe it.


---

I get it.

Others have called it ground of being, ein sof, and many other things. You can even call it "I AM", which in my view is not a reference to an external force, but the internal force within all of us that makes us conscious. We're all I-ams.

 

[Runewolf1973]

They are the same. 'God' is the actor playing all the myriad parts of the creation simultaneously, from black holes down to the smallest particle. It's all just One Big Act, so don't take it too seriously, LOL....

This precisely. That which is the Tao or the ''animatimg factor'', or ''God'' as some would prefer to call it, is all things, all words, all definitions, all energy, all matter, all time, all space...it is everything. Even Legion's musings are as a result of that consciousness. Nothing is apart from it.


---

 

[godnotgod]

This precisely. That which is the Tao or the ''animatimg factor'', or ''God'' as some would prefer to call it, is all things, all words, all definitions, all energy, all matter, all time, all space...it is everything. Even Legion's musings are as a result of that consciousness. Nothing is apart from it.


---

It is everything, and, it is nothing, which makes everything possible.

 

[godnotgod]

I get it.

Others have called it ground of being, ein sof, and many other things. You can even call it "I AM", which in my view is not a reference to an external force, but the internal force within all of us that makes us conscious. We're all I-ams.

Yes, but 'I-Am' is not the self, not the body, not one's history, not subject to birth and death, ungrown, uncaused. The true I-Am is pure being outside of Time and Space, yet fully conscious, fully present, Here, Now. It is, in the words of Alan Watts, 'The Indestructible Sunyata*':

'Before Abraham was, I Am'
Yeshu


*Emptiness; Void

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

They are the same. 'God' is the actor playing all the myriad parts of the creation simultaneously, from black holes down to the smallest particle.

I related what Planck communicated which, your beliefs notwithstanding, do not imply or entail what was said about Planck's quote.

 

[godnotgod]

I related what Planck communicated which, your beliefs notwithstanding, do not imply or entail what was said about Planck's quote.

Heh..heh...heh....as I said:

'God' is the actor playing all the myriad parts of the creation simultaneously, from black holes down to the smallest particle.'

But what I failed to include is that God is doing all of this in a very sophisticated cosmic game of Hide and Seek, in which IT is hiding within all forms, pretending to be those very forms and identities, including scientists posting on religious forums....like yourself, for example.....but who has clean forgotten his real identity. IT is such a good actor, that IT has most of us fooled completely, including ITself, save for a few of us...well...like myself, for example.

But I know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that you are God in disguise, but you have yet to remember the fact, as you simply got a little lost within the maze of the intellect and academia, titles and credentials, having temporarily become attached to such encrustations.

All I can say is: 'Bravo! A most excellent performance!'

:clap:bow:

The ones I find the most compelling are poker-faced atheists who are God in the living flesh pretending they don't even exist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Heh..heh...heh....as I said:
'God' is the actor playing all the myriad parts of the creation simultaneously, from black holes down to the smallest particle.'

I did not seek to clarify your beliefs, but Planck's.

I know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that you are God in disguise, but you have yet to remember the fact.

I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space were it not that I had bad dreams.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space were it not that I had bad dreams.

Really, you ARE bound in a nutshell...your consciousness locked somewhere within that skull, deep inside the meat of that animal brain of yours...
Meanwhile, the rest of us have already figured out there was never a nutshell to begin with.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Really, you ARE bound in a nutshell

Not a fan of Shakespeare or is this a more generic critique?

...your consciousness locked somewhere within that skull, deep inside the meat of that animal brain of yours...

Perhaps. What do you know about the brain? Have you ever seen any imaging of its processes? Do you have any idea at all about any model of neuronal activity? Can you begin to comprehend the cellular functioning of a single neuron, let alone neural circuit?

Do you criticize my posts out of a knowledge of neural activity and what we know of brain activity due to some evidence you possess? Or are your critiques the results of your ignorance? Do you know anything relevant about this that a child couldn't pick up from reading some pathetically simplistic explanation found in some little article intended for children? Have you any capacity at all, other then the use of your nonsensical pseudo-rhetoric, that could do more than illustrate how thoroughly your insults of my posts are anything but infantile responses devoid of substance reminiscent of a child seeking to lash out from subjective deficiencies?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Not a fan of Shakespeare or is this a more generic critique?





Perhaps. What do you know about the brain? Have you ever seen any imaging of its processes? Do you have any idea at all about any model of neuronal activity? Can you begin to comprehend the cellular functioning of a single neuron, let alone neural circuit?

Do you criticize my posts out of a knowledge of neural activity and what we know of brain activity due to some evidence you possess? Or are your critiques the results of your ignorance? Do you know anything relevant about this that a child couldn't pick up from reading some pathetically simplistic explanation found in some little article intended for children? Have you any capacity at all, other then the use of your nonsensical pseudo-rhetoric, that could do more than illustrate how thoroughly your insults of my posts are anything but infantile responses devoid of substance reminiscent of a child seeking to lash out from subjective deficiencies?

So far in this single post you have insulted me several times by calling me ignorant, pathetic, simplistic, childish, nonsensical, infantile, and deficient. So who is really being insulting or disrespectful here, hmmm? I don't care how well educated you are or how (in a rather pompous manner) you wish to show off or "flex" your academic muscle. It does not give you the right to treat others on this forum with complete disrespect. You know that term they use when a bodybuilder gets so big they say he is muscle-bound? I think you may in fact be brain-bound.

...or perhaps I am wrong in that analogy...

You are not simply a conscious brain bounded in a nutshell (a human skull), you are a NUT bound in a SHELL.

---

 

[godnotgod]

Mr Brain sez:

 

[Runewolf1973]

Not a fan of Shakespeare or is this a more generic critique?

Perhaps you are a fan of Star Trek then...

Is your real name NOMAD?

Captain Kirk vs NOMAD - YouTube

 

[godnotgod]

I did not seek to clarify your beliefs, but Planck's.

But you didn't...I did.

I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space were it not that I had bad dreams.

Like sins, perhaps they're not YOUR bad dreams.

I was an earthworm yesterday
And all my life I lived in clay
And did aspire the light....

Richard Rose
*****

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]When I awoke into my life,[/FONT]
a sobbing dwarf
whom giants served
only as they pleased,
I was not what I seemed.

The Sea and the Mirror - W.H. Auden

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Is your real name NOMAD?

Concerning my name, the tattoo on my neck says of it: Λεγιὼν ὄνομά μοι, ὅτι πολλοί ἐσμεν

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But you didn't...I did.




Like sins, perhaps they're not YOUR bad dreams.

"But I, being poor, have only my dreams"

 

[Runewolf1973]

Concerning my name, the tattoo on my neck says of it: Λεγιὼν ὄνομά μοι, ὅτι πολλοί ἐσμεν

Mark 5:9

That would actually be a pretty cool tattoo.:yes: